constitution,20 continued down to the tenth century.21 Besides their usual names, Montanistae, Cataphryges (oi kaтà Þpúyas), other appellations were applied to them, some of which may have referred to particular sections, while others were mere names of derision.22

THIRD CHAPTER.

INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

§ 49.

The internal development of the orthodox church depended in a great degree on its external relations, the persecution of the heathen, and the attacks of heretics. Christian literature had been confined till now solely to didactic and admonitory letters, seven of which in this period also, proceeded from the pious bishop of Corinth, Dionysius;1 but now it developed itself in other directions, particularly in defending Christianity against the heathen, and in combating heretics. It was corrupted, however, by a mass of spurious writings. Those external relations could not be without an influence on the formation of doctrines, since they led of necessity to the exhibition and support of particular dogmas. In like manner, ecclesiastical usages received from them a more definite character. At the same time, it was a circumstance of great importance, that several Platonic philosophers had now come over to Christianity, by

20 Hieronym. Ep. 27, ad Marcellam: Habent primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas : secundos, quos appellant Cenonas : atque ita in tertium, i. e., paene ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur. 21 The last laws against them proceeded from Justinian, A.D. 530 and 532, see Cod. lib. i. tit. 5, 1. 18–21.

22 Quintilliani, Priscillianistae, 'Aprorupiral (see on this Noesselt de vera aetate scriptt. Tertulliani, § 47), Tascodrugitae (ñaσσaλoрvyxîïù). The following are mere corruptions of words: Tascodrocitae (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 10), Ascodrogitae (Philastr. c. 75), Ascodrogi (Theodos. jun. novella iii. in fine), Ascodrutae, Ascodrupitae, (which, however, are enumerated among the Marcosians by Theodoret Haer. fab. comp. i. 10), Ascitae (Augustin de Haer. 62), cf. Gothofredus ad novellam iii. Theodosii jun. From such corrupted names, however, new heresies have been etymologically deduced.

1 'EnιOTOλai kabоhikai to the churches of Rome, Nicomedia, Gnossus, Athens, Lacedaemon, Gortyna, and in Pontus. Fragments are given by Euseb. ii. 25, iv. 23.

2

3

means of whom Platonism continued to gain more friends among the Christians. Besides, the Greek language was almost the only ecclesiastical tongue. Although several Latin translations of the Bible were made, yet the writers even of the western church wrote in Greek. But Christian ideas had a freshness of life only in the people who spoke the language of the New Testament. In the west, they merely received

what the east produced.

§ 50.

APOLOGIES FOR CHRISTIANITY AGAINST HEATHEN AND JEWS.

J. A. Fabricii Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem relig. christ. asseruerunt. Hamb. 1725. 4. H. G. Tzschirner's Geschichte der Apologetik. Leipz. Th. 1. 1805. 8. The same author's Fall des Heidenthums, i. 202, ff. A list of apologetic works may be found in Danz de Eusebio Caes. p. 93, ss.-The best edition of all the apologists is given by Prudentius Maranus. Paris. 1742. fol.

The pressure of circumstances gave rise at this time to various apologies for Christianity, which are supposed in part to have been presented to emperors;1 the first to Hadrian (126), in Athens, by Quadratus and Aristides (Euseb. iv. 3; Hieron. Catal. 19, 20). The first apology of Justin Martyr († 166)3

2

2 At this period originated the custom of the Roman Church, which continued down to the middle ages, of requiring those who were to be baptized to recite the creed first in Greek then in Latin. Cf. Edm. Martene de antiquis eccl. ritibus, ed. 2, t. i. p. 88; A. Gavanti Thesaurus sacr. rituum ed. G. M. Meratus, t. i. p. 42, and the other works quoted in Walchii Biblioth. symbol. vetus, p. 57.

3 Augustin. de Doctr. christ. ii. 11: Qui scripturas ex hebraica lingua in graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuivis primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. C. 16: In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala caeteris praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae. L. van Ess Gesch. d. Vulgata. Tübingen. 1824. 8.

1 First doubted by Bayle, s. v. Athenagore. Semler Introduction to Baumgarten's Polemik, ii. 43. Henke, i. 129. In opposition to these doubts, see Tzschirner Fall des Heidenthums, i. 233. Semisch Justin d. M. i. 63.

2 The apology of Quadratus was still extant in the beginning of the seventh century (Photius, cod. 162). That Ado (about 860) had the apology of Aristides does not follow from his Martyrolog. ad d. 5, Nov. (cf. J. Dallaei de scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferunter, p. 90, s.): and the account of de la Guilletière Athènes anciennes et nouvelles, Paris. 1676, p. 146, of its being still preserved at that time in the monastery of Medelli at Athens, is as little worthy of credit as all the rest of the narrative of this pretended journey (see on it Spon Voyage d'Italie et Dalm. Chateaubriand's Travels from Paris to Jerusalem, part i. p. 33.

3 According to Dr. A. Stieren in Illgen's Zeitschr. für d. hist. Theol. 1842, i. 21, the year VOL. I.-10

4

is addressed to Antoninus Pius (138 or 139), the second and smaller belongs, according to the usual opinion, to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-166). The other apologetic writings designed for the heathen, which are attributed to him, are of more doubtful origin. To Marcus Aurelius, Athenagoras addressed his πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν; and Melito, bishop of Sardis,” and Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, their apologies since lost (Euseb. iv. 26; Hieron. Cat. 24, 26). At the same time appeared the apology of Miltiades (Euseb. v. 17; Hieron. Cat. 39); of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in three books to Autolycus; and of Tatian, the 2óуоç прòç "Еλλnvas.10 On the other hand, the epistle to Diognetus is older."1

8

Per

of Justin's death was 161. Semisch Justin d. M. i. 16. 4 So according to Pagi, Tillemont, Mosheim, and Semisch. On the other hand, according to Valesius, Longuerue, and Neander (K. G. i. ii. 1144), it was also written under Antoninus Pius. F. Chr. Boll, in Illgen's Zeitschrift, 1842, iii. 3, assumes that both apologies made up originally one whole, which may have been written about 150. Apologiam primam ed. J. E. Grabe. Oxon. 1700, alteram H. Hutchin. ib. 1703, utramque C. Gu. Thalemann. Lips. 1755. J. W. J. Braunius. Bonnae. 1830. 8. In the older editions before Grabe the smaller apology is incorrectly placed first. Comp. Justin d. Märtyrer von C. Semisch. 2 Thle. Breslau. 1840-42. 8. J. C. Th. Otto de Justini M. scriptis et doctrina comm. Jenae. 1841. 8. S. Justini philosophi et M. opera rec., prolegomenis, adnotatione ac versione instruxit indicesque adjecit J. C. Th. Otto. 2 tomi. Jenae. 1842. 8.

On the credibility of the ancient narrative of Justin's death, see

5 The λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας was first denied to be Justin Martyr's by Oudinus, lately by Herbig (comm. de scriptis, quae sub nomine Justini phil. et mart. circumferuntur. Vratisl. 1833), Arendt (krit. Untersuchungen uber die Schriften Just. d. M. in the Tübinger theol. Quartalschr. 1834, ii. 256), and Moehler (Patrologie, i. 224), but it is defended by Semisch, i. 105. The λóуoç πрòç "E2λnvas is pronounced unauthentic by most writers, even by Semisch, i. 163. On the fragment πɛрì ¿vαorúσews opinions are divided. Herbig, 1. c. p. 74, endeavors at great length to prove the spuriousness; Semisch, ì. 146, the genuineness of it. There is also great difference of sentiment respecting the work πɛρì μovapxías. Herbig, p. 69 and Semisch, i. 167, regard it as spurious. In the mean time, however, all these works belong to this period.

6 I. e. supplicatio, not legatio, according to Mosheim de vera aetate apologetici, quam Ath. pro Christ. scripsit, diss. (in dissert. ad hist. eccl. pertin. vol. i. p. 269, ss.) written in the year 177. ed. J. G. Lindner. Longosal. 1774, ejusd. curae posteriores in Athen. ibid. 1775. 8. Hepì åvaoráσewç tüv vekpõv ed. L. A. Rechenberg. Lips. 1685. 8. Th. Adr. Clarisse Comm. de Athenagorae vita et scriptis et ejus doctrina de relig. christ. Lugd. Bat. 1819. 8 Guerike de schola Alexandrina, i. 21, ii. 6, 50, 97, 403.

Melito, by licentiate F. Piper in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1838, i. 54.

8 The fragments in the Catenae, especially in the Σειρὰ εἰς τὴν Ὀκτάτευχον—ἐπιμελείᾳ Niêηþópov rov Oɛотóкov, Lips. 1772, 2 voll. fol., attributed to one Apollinaris, deserve a closer examination. The most of them belong to Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the fourth century; but many might be referred even to the bishop of Hierapolis. See Schwegler's Montanismus, S. 203.

9 Ed. J. C. Wolf. Hamb. 1724. 8, translated by M. W. F. Thienemann. Leipzig. 1834. 10 Ed. Worth. Oxon. 1700.8. Tatianus d. Apologet, von Dr. H. Daniel. Halle. 1837. 8. 11 Formerly attributed falsely to Justin. On the other side, see Tillemont, Mémoires, ii. 371; C. D. a Grossheim de epist. ad Diognetum comm. Lips. 1828. 4to, who fixes the

haps also M. Minucius Felix, a lawyer in Rome, who defended Christianity in a dialogue called Octavius,12 belongs to the age of Marcus Aurelius, and is in this view the oldest Latin apologist. On the contrary, the diaσvpμòs twv ěžw piλooópov of Hermias must be placed in a later period.1

13

All these defenders aim principally to show the groundlessness of the accusations adduced against Christianity, the reasonableness of it contrasted with the absurdity and immorality of heathenism, and the nothingness of the heathen deities.15 While they refer to the fact that Christianity agrees with the wisest philosophers, they represent the latter again as having drawn their wisdom from the Old Testament. In proving the divine origin of Christianity, they attach special value to the predictions of the Old Testament, the miracles of Jesus and the apostles, the miraculous powers continuing among Christians, 16

epistle about the year 132; Moehler (Schriften u. Aufsätze, i. 19. Patrologie, i. 154), who places it in the time of Trajan; Semisch (Justin d. M. i. 172), who puts it in the time of Justin. It has been published with an introduction and remarks by Lic. G. Böhl in Opuscula Patram selecta. Berol. 1826. p. i. p. 109, ss.

12 In the three only known MSS., and in the older editions, it appears as the eighth book of Arnobius (lib. octavus, a misunderstanding of the title Octavius). It has been very frequently published, among other forms cum integris Woweri, Elmenhorstii, Heraldi, et Rigaltii notis, aliorumque hinc inde collectis, ex rec. Jac. Gronovii. Accedunt Cyprianus de Idol. van. et Jul. Firm. Maternus. Lugd. Bat. 1709. 8. J. G. Lindner. Longosalissae. 1760, ed. ii. emend. 1773. 8, translated with an introduction and remarks by J. G. Russwurm, Hamburg. 1824. 4, newly published, explained and translated by Dr. J. H. B. Lubkert. Leipzig. 1836. 8, ad fidem codd. regii et Bruxell. rec. ed. D. Muralto. Turici. 1836. 8. The earlier more prevailing opinion that Minucius belongs to the interval between Tertullian and Cyprian, 220-230, rested particularly on the testimony of Jerome, who Catal. cap. 53, says: Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem et Apollonium Latinorum ponitur; and first mentions Minucius in cap. 58. On the other hand, Blondell (de l'Euchariste, p. 119), Dallaeus (against whom see Bayle's Dictionn. s. v. Fronton), J. D. ab Hoven (in Lindner's second edition, p. 261), Oelrichs (de scriptt. eccl. lat., p. 24) place him, from internal grounds, and because, cap. 9, Fronto (see § 40, note 2) is mentioned as still living, in the age of Marcus Aurelius. This view has been lately adopted by Kestner (Agape, S. 356), H. Meirer (comm. de Minucio Felice, Turici. 1824. 8), Russwurm, and v. Muralt 1. c., and even Tzschirner (Fall des Heidenthums, i. 219), who had formerly defended the old opinion in the Geschichte der Apologetik, i. 279.

13 Ed. Worth (annexed to his Tatian), J. Ch. Dommerich, Hal. 1764. 8. Gu. F. Menzel, Lugd. Batt. 1840. 8. According to Menzel, the work belongs to the fifth century.

14 Ch. F. Eisenlohr, Argumenta ab apologetis saec. ii. ad confirmandam rel. christ veritatem usurpata. Tubing. 1797. 4. (recus. in Pottii Sylloge comm. theologg. vol. ii. p. 114, ss.) Tzschirner's Fall des Heidenth. i. 237, ff. F. Wurm, in Klaiber's Studien der evangel. Geistlichkeit Wirtemberg's, i. ii. 1. Semisch, Justin d. M. ii. 56.

15 Here an important preparation had been already made for them by the heathen philosophers, especially by the view that had originated with Euhemerus, that the deities were dead men. See above § 13, note 5. Cf. Athenagoras, Leg. p. 35. Theoph. ad Autol. p. 75, 70. Minucius Felix, Oct. c. 21, appeals expressly to Euhemerus. 16 Tholuck on the miracles of the Catholic Church in his verm. Schriften, i. 28.

the rapid spread of Christianity, and the steadfastness of its followers in times of persecution. They demand, in fine, the same protection for Christians, which other philosophical sects enjoyed.

In defense of Christianity against Judaism, there appeared at this period two dialogues; under Hadrian the ȧvτiλoyía ПañíσKOV ἀντιλογία Παπίσκου kaì 'lácovos, which was afterward, but certainly without reason, ascribed to Aristo of Pella ; 17 and διάλογος πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαίον, of Justin Martyr.18

§ 51.

COMBATING OF HERETICS-CATHOLIC CHURCH-CANON OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

The writings of the earlier opponents of heretics, the work of Justin Martyr against all heresies; the books of Agrippa Castor (about 135), who wrote against Basilides; of Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Rhodon, Philip bishop of Gortyna, and of Modestus, who all wrote against Marcion; of Miltiades, Claudius Apollinaris, Serapion bishop of Antioch, and Apollonius, who all wrote against the Montanists, have been lost, except a few fragments. On the other hand, we still possess the work of Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, 177-202), ëλɛyxos kaì ȧva

17 This vriλoyía or dıáhɛğıç, cited so early as by Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. iv. p. 199), is lost, and even of the Latin translation of one Celsus the Praef. ad Vigilium (in opp. Cypriani) is alone extant. Maximus († 662) comm. ad. Dionys. Areop. de myst. theol. c. 1, is the first who names Ariston as the author, but adds that Clement of Alex, Hypotyposeon, lib. vi., ascribes this dialogue to Luke. On the other hand, Hieron., in quaest. in Genes., says: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Plerique existimant, sicut in altercatione quoque lasonis et Papisci scriptum est-in Hebraeo haberi: in filio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Quod falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat. A Hebrew Jewish-Christian like Aristo could never have written that. The Chron. paschale að Olymp. 228, ann. 2, says that 'Απελλής and 'Αρίστων (probably ὁ Πελλαῖος ̓Αρίστων) handed over an apology to Hadrian. Since this is not found, it seems that some conjectured they discovered it in the dialogue in question.

18 Ed. Sam. Jebb. Lond. 1719. 8. The doubts of its authenticity raised by C. G. Koch (Justini M. cum Tryph. Jud. dial.--suppositionis convictus. Kilon. 1700. 8. The contro versial writings on the subject, see in Walchii Bibl. patrist. p. 216), Wetstein, Semler (Wetst. prolegg. in N. T. ed. Semler, p. 174), and S. G. Lange (Gesch. d. Dogmen d. christl. Kirche, i. 137), have been answered by G. Münscher, an dialogus cum Tryphone Justino M. recte adscribatur. Marb. 1799. 4 (also in Commentatt. theoll. edd. Rosenmüller, Fuldner et Maurer, i. ii. 184), and Semisch, Justin d. M. i. 75.

3 Σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων cited by himself, Apol. i. c. 26.